tv [untitled] December 19, 2012 11:00am-11:30am PST
of the budget and finance committee. my name is carmen chu, chair of the committee. supervisor avalos will be joining us shortly. he is currently at the bay area air quality management district. i'm also joined by supervisor kim. our clerk today is mr. young. at sfgt we have jennifer low and mark bunch. mr. low, do you have any announcements? >> yes. please turnoff all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the [speaker not understood] should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the december 11, 2012 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. would you call item 1? >> item number 1, resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a grant of $870,355 from the san francisco parks alliance for the design and construction of a playground in sue bierman park. >> thank you very much. do we have a representative on this aye fen?
-- item? please come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisor chu. good afternoon, supervisor kim. my name is abigail [inaudible] with the partnerships division with recreation and park department. i am here to talk about the accept and expend grant from the san francisco parks a likesv in the amount of $870,355 which will authorize the recreation and park department to accept and expend this grant for the design and construction of a playground in sue bierman park. i'd like to spend a few minutes to give you some background on the group that's working on this project and the playground as well. the friends of waterfront playground is a volunteer organization formed by two waterfront neighborhoods, the
barbery crist and [speaker not understood]. currently there are about 12,000 residents and it's growing to 20,000, which includes over 1,000 children. in addition to those children, there are 700 children that come to the area every day in child care centers and the ymca camp. however, there are no public play grounds within a half mile of the area for these children to play. the friends of waterfront playground have been working in partnership with the san francisco recreation and park department and their fiscal sponsor, the san francisco parks alliance, to plan for and build a brand-new playground to serve these neighbors and these children in sue bierman park. sue bierman park is located in the embarcadaro. it covers about two city blocks bounded by the embarcadaro washington street, clay street and davis street, and it's
bisected by drumm street. in 2004 rec-park led a [speaker not understood] for sue bierman park. at that time the community did express interest in including a playground, but there was a ordinance that prohibited structures including play grounds. so, this group, the friends of waterfront playground, they worked with supervisor david chiu's office and supervisor chiu in october of 2011 introduced legislation amending the ordinance to authorize the construction of a playground on portions of the park. this legislation was passed by the board of supervisors in november 2011. so, at that point the friends group engaged rome adi sign, which was the landscape architect that had helped design the master fit plan for the park * and they led a community process to design a new playground for sue bierman park. the proposed playground is approximately 5,500 square feet.
it is carefully nestled into the park land. it is designed for children 2 to 12 years of age with a mix of equipment for younger children and then some equipment for children 5 to 12 years. the play area will be fully a-d-a compliant for accessible play. it will feature a port and place rubber safety surface and benches to match the existing park benches. the play area will be surrounded by landscaping and a fence with a gated entrance from the existing interior park pathway. there will also be a donor recognition plan to tastefully recognize donors who support this project. in march of 2012 the rec-park commission approved the conceptual plan. the donor recognition plan, and the recommendation to the board of supervisors to accept and expend this grant. and in may they approved the memorandum of understanding between the parks alliance, the friends group and rec park. so, now the san francisco parks
alliance, as the friends group fiscal agent, they are prepared to make two grants. one part of the grant is a cash gift valued at $37,500 which is to fund the cost of the rec parkman jerk to oversee this project during construction and to make sure that the friends group really adheres to the city's policies and guidelines. the second part of the grant is about $830,000, and that is the cost of the entire playground which will be a gift to the city. currently the friends group is extremely hard at work fund-raising. they've raised approximately $300,000, and we have in place an m-o-u that the friends group may not break ground until all the funding is in place. they expect to break ground in the spring of 2013, but we work with them closely to make sure
that everything's on track before they start working on city property. thank you very much. >> thank you. for this item we do not have a budget analyst report. so, why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there in a minute bier of the public who wish to speak on item number 1? come on up. * members yes, hello, ronald [speaker not understood]. i'm new and i'm asking the rules -- the clerk -- said i could ask questions. you might answer questions at the edv, it's not required. and i'm asking is there a bidding process for this or is the construction person already chosen? and are you able to make it a time certain amount of time that the park would be closed to people using it? i just went to jackson square park. this is the one on turk street opposite emergency management, supposed to be open in september and it's still closed.
so, and, of course, lafayette park, that's in litigation or discussions about whether such and such should happen, and that's closed. so, i'm wondering if you can attach something, a time certain thing, that the job gets done and that park and rec can't use discretion to keep things closed. and also i'm wondering if you are able to -- because port supervisors and port clerk get all the hassle on these things. i'm wondering if you're able to announce when you receive and assign this to the committee who is the contact person on staff. i just found that there are 401 people on city staff in san francisco earning over $200,000 a year and it seems like they have enough money at park and rec they don't need more money from this group that's trying to build things to have money designated for a park person to do this. and again, this is a large amount of money.
i hope the clerk reads out the amount of money on all these things on the agenda today. huge amounts of money are coming up here. thank you. >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. if i can just ask, abigail, if you would speak briefly to the bidding process for a work like this or construction like this. >> this playground project is funded solely through private funds, through the from youedxctionv of waterfront playground and their fund-raising effort. and, so, the bidding process is different than the normal city bidding process since it's not being put out to bid by the department. so, the friends of waterfront playground, they work with the san francisco parks alliance to put together the bid package
and to actually hire the contractor. and the project has been put out to bid. i don't think at this point the contractor has been selected yet. >> and even though it's all private dollars that we're talking about here in terms of the construction of this structure or this playground, the idea is that they would put out the private entity puts out the bid for the contractor, but there is rec park oversight over the construction, correct? >> yes, yes. and there's rec park oversight or there was rec park oversight putting together that bid package. >> okay, thank you. any other questions, supervisor kim? >> i just had a quick question about the maintenance. is the [speaker not understood] playground in the long term? i just had a question about the funding for the maintenance of the playground in the long term. >> sure. during the community -- during the community process, the recreation and park department was very involved in that including our operations staff
who will then be maintaining this playground. so we made sure that the equipment that is being used is equipment that our structural maintenance yard can actually maintain and if needed over the years, replace or fix. so, it is coming from city approved vendors. and the landscaping, the plants and the materials that will be used are materials that our gardeners really approve of and know that they can maintain. and we are in discussion with the parks alliance and with the funds group to provide an ongoing maintenance fund. and in addition to that, a stewardship, a commitment to really help volunteer at the playground and help maintain it over the years. they're a very committed group so we feel strongly that will happen. >> by the way, i'm very appreciative of the san francisco parka linetionv and the friends of the waterfront playground. * park alliance we depend on these partnerships and really invested committee
members to fill out the new open space especially in district 3 and district 6 which i represent, which has the least amount of open space in the city. i'm very appreciative, even though this is right across the borderline. i know many families in the south of market will certainly benefit from a playground being in that area. i know it's a big debate with the boce ball court down the way. i think a lot of our families will be very excited to see there will be a playground on the site. but of course with new play grounds and new parks there is always an additional maintenance cost that has to be borne by our pbm. it's always good to have a plan around that. thank you. >> thank you. i also want to thank the parks alliance and of course the friend group to raise the funds to make this possible. that is something we are all very appreciative of. so, given that we've taken public comment, do we have a motion to send this item forward with recommend? tion >> so moved. >> we have that motion and we'll do that without objection. item 2. >> item number 2, resolution authorizing the department of the status of women to retroactively accept and expend
an extension grant in the amount of $650,000 through the united states department of justice's office of violence against women, encourage arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders program, for grant period april 1, 2012 through march 31, 2014. >> thank you very much for this item. we have emilie from the department of status of women. >> good morning, supervisor chu. good morning, supervisor kim. i'm joined today by tara anderson, grant [speaker not understood] from the district attorney and [speaker not understood] from our department. i just wanted to share with you the commission just finished three community meetings with our partners in the violence against women prevention and intervention grants program. these are direct service providers who work on a daily basis with the domestic violence victim. we held the community meeting at [speaker not understood]. we held some at the department for all of our agencies and at cameron house. and the themes that we heard over and over again were
language barriers continue to persist when victim of domestic violence want to report a crime or follow-up on a crime, that cultural barriers exist, particularly among those immigrants where in their home countries law enforcement can be corrupt. so, they don't have the trust that's needed in order to report domestic violence and family violence. so, i'm very pleased today to report on a very strong and deep collaboration between our department, the district attorney's office, asian women shelter and casa of the women. we've been awarded a $650,000 grant over two years to really look at high-risk populations, limited english proficiency and/or lgbt groups. because we really see gaps in their ability to access the criminal justice system on domestic violence. and i'm going to ask tara to give you some details on how
this extends and expands on existing work. >> great, thank you. so, there are four program components under this grant award. one is centralizing prosecution which builds off of the work of the limited english proficiency subunit within the district attorney's office, to prosecute perpetrators in cases where the victim is limited english proficient. this unit will serve as liaison for the identification of victim who are considered to be at high risk of [speaker not understood] in relationships. the second area is training when iction the district attorney's office to ensure that prosecutors and victim advocates can work with victims who are considered to be at high risk of legislatality in relationships. * lethality training in the office is a third component to make sure not only within the district attorney's office, but our other law enforcement partners and the community based organizations that we're working with are all trained in lethality assessment. and developing and implementing
a validated risk and danger assessment tool which actually is one of the core recommendations that came out of the safety and accountability audit. so, one kind of technical area that i know that you'll be interested in is how this is constituted as a continuation award. so, in 2009 the city was awarded under the same grant category to encourage arrest policies, and that was awarded to the san francisco district attorney's office. the original applicant at the time was the mayor's office of criminal justice. in the 2012 fiscal award announcement where we have applied to tailor our grant awards specifically to follow the assessment, it was indicated that a law enforcement entity could not be the lead applicant. our communication with the mayor's office and the department of status of women appeared most appropriate for them to be lead applicants. so, you'll see within the materials that the grant award
is extending beyond our march date, which was actually when we completed our close out package with the federal government. when we completed our close out, the district attorney's office used our general funds to support the staffing positions that were no longer funded through the grant at that time. we have current requisitions at our business that we utilize to hire new positions in to support those grants. i'm happy to answer any questions about the details associated with this being a continuation award or any questions that you may have about the grant. >> thank you. so, this grant as we now see it is coming through as a resolution. so, you're not proposing to add any new positions, you're using existing staff? >> that's correct. >> and it doesn't require [inaudible]? >> no, it's not. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> i just had a quick question. so, i know that one of the targeted population, of course, are women that maybe have limited english proficiency and so are not able to communicate and also a variety of different
cultural barriers. i'm also wondering how this impacts men that might be in similar situations that are also in abusive relationships or violent relationships. >> so, these services would be available to them as well. the victim service advocate. and also our district attorney, assistant district attorney is assigned to this unit, contact each victim after a case comes before our office to the police department. it's identified what their language of choice is to communicate. and then either through our own resources within victim services, we do have languages. in those areas where an individual isn't able to -- within our staff to communicate with that victim, we access the language line. * wide array of languages >> i appreciate that. it's something i've learned from the lgbt community as well. i was curious about that. thank you. >> thank you. with this item there is no budget analyst report. why don't we open up this item
for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send this item forward? >> so moved. >> we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendation and we can do that without objection. item 3. >> item number 3, resolution authorizing the department of the environment to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $250,000 from the sidney e. frank foundation to plan and implement specific projects to source 100% of san francisco's electrical demand from renewable energy sources from july 15, 2012, through june 15, 2013. >> thank you very much. >> supervisors, guillermo [speaker not understood] with the department of environment. the department encourages the committee to approve and recommend the accept and expend grant from the sidney e. frank foundation for $250,000. the grant will enable the department of the environment to continue developing plans for san francisco to be 100% of its electricity demand from
renewable energy qu sources. * meet currently the city-wide profile is 41% renewable. the department will draw upon recommendations contained in a recently completed mayor's renewable energy task force report. among the supported programs will be initiatives to expand in city renewables, primarily solar systems, advance regulatory changes to accelerate implementation of renewable projects, encourage community-based systems, and promote energy efficiency in san francisco. other strategies we will use include stakeholder consultations, working in partnership with pg&e and sfpuc to implement new programs that would ease access to renewables, push some state advocacy efforts, development of new renewable energy financing mechanisms for customers in san francisco, and a continue our education and outreach. these efforts are vital for san francisco to continue to
achieve its climate and sustainability goals. i thank you for your consideration and i'm happy, along with my colleague adam stern to address any questions the committee may have. >> thank you. and just to clarify, this also would not require any additional hires, correct? >> correct. no additional hires. >> thank you. so, why don't we open this item for public comment since there is no report on this item. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendations. >> so moved. >> we'll do that without objection. item 4. >> item number 4, resolution authorizing the department of emergency management to retroactively accept and expend a fy 2012 homeland security grant program grant in the amount of $667,670 from the united states department of homeland security, through the california emergency management agency, for building and sustaining preparedness capabilities for the period of october 12, 2012, through may 31, 2014.
>> thank you. for this item we have [speaker not understood]. >> good morning, supervisors, [speaker not understood] with department of emergency management. this item is a grant for $667,000 from the department of homeland security. unlike other grants i brought before you this is a small grant just for san francisco. it will fund planning operations, equipment training and exercises for several city departments including the police department, sheriff's department, fire department. it fund equipment at rec and park as well as training in hazardous materials for staff at the department of public health. there are no new positions that are created under this grant. there are no matching funds that are required. the legislation is retroactive because we received the notice that the grant is has been awarded to us the same day the performance period began which was october 12.
and we request your approval of this resolution. happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you so much. this one does not have a report either, so we'll open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 4? [speaker not understood] again. again, i call your attention to the received and assigned part of this item. if there had been a persona tadv to this and a phone number, i went to emergency management yesterday and i was sheriff's department guard, they had their hands on the trigger. i asked them about this. they didn't know at the building on turk street. so, my question is are these one of the items -- and i hope you'll write these questions down. is this one of these things where the homeland security gives our local police departments military-like weapons and all kinds of
advance technology weapons? * that's the first question. and the second question is what are the requirements of the san francisco has to take to agree with this? of course i'm with the 911 truth movement as opposed to 911 liars movement. and i just want to know if this part of the militarization of the local police department and what are the requirements. and was this the same person who came before this committee and got $21 million grant just a few weeks ago? i think ever since 911 happened -- because i have a little quiet and not talking, please, on the side there. sir? i'm trying to concentrate, please. chair, could you ask the man over there to -- >> if you continue -- i can't think when someone else is talking. again, we have 401 san francisco city staffers earning over $200,000 a year and they
won't let someone talk. so, i hope you'll answer these questions about the militarization and i wish some of this money could go to muni because every day in san francisco is like an emergency now. we're in a constant state of emergency and muni needs some of this money. thank you. >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on item number 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. and just to answer quickly on the question that was raised, most of the money that does come in in particular for this grant that is documented in the paperwork is really going towards the planning and making sure that our city is in compliance and we actually are working together. the money goes to various different departments to be able to do planning efforts and complete different strategies around how we respond to emergencies. so, really this is part of a larger effort to make sure that all of our first responders,
but also our departments and also our citizens are engaged and know how to respond when there is an emergency that occurs. thank you. so, we have heard public comment on this item. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> okay, we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendation and we can do that without objection. thank you. item 5. >> item number 5, resolution approving the issuance of a tax exempt obligation by the abag finance authority for nonprofit corporations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $32,000,000 to finance and refinance various capital facilities owned by san francisco friends school. >> thank you. for this item we have anthony abizon. >> good morning, members of the budget analyst committee. my name is anthony [speaker not understood] with the controller's office of public finance. the item before you approves the issuance of $32 million to finance and refinance capital improvements at san francisco friends school. there is no fiscal impact to the city and the city is not
responsible for repayment. the resolution adopting the resolution would allow the financing to proceed on a tax exempt basis. and in the audience is bond counsel and members, representatives from the school if you have any project specific questions. >> thank you. just a quick question. this item does not have any fiscal impact for the city. so, therefore, there's no budget analyst report for that, there is no general fund impact. but generally these still have to receive approval by the board of supervisors in order to be issued. so, i'm just wondering, in terms of tax exempt obligations that are available for these other organizations that are not the city, is there sort of an upper limit to how much we can actually issue? we've seen a number of these that have come through. generally we've approved it because there is not a fiscal impact and it is allowing another entity to benefit from the tax exempt status. is there an upper limit to how much of these tax exempt obligations can be let out? >> there is no upper limit at the local city level. i don't believe there is an upper limit on the federal level either.
it's a transaction that is between the borrower and the lender. and, so, as you mentioned, the resolution merely approves the financing to proceed on a tax exempt basis. >> okay. so, there's no kind of limit to the number or the amount of tax exempt bonds that are let out i guess in the general market. that's just a general question. if you don't have the answer, if you can find out that would be great. >> sure. and again the resolution is for not to exceed 32 million for this project. >> right. will the san francisco friends of school, do you think that you might be able to come up and speak briefly to what this would go towards? just for the benefit of the public. >> thank you, supervisor kim. my name is paul galvin. i'm the director of finance and operations for san francisco friends school.
in november 2007, the city and abag approved $24 million in a credit enhanced variable rate bond financing to fund a renovation of the school's campus, which is the former levi straus factory at 250 valencia street. the project enabled the school to pursue its growth plans of adding grades 6 through 8 * . and it added classrooms, labs, library, visual and performing arts space, athletics facilities, and an outdoor play space. we are asking a recommendation and approval for refinancing these series 2007 bonds. additional bond proceeds would find new capital improvements to the school's facilities and pay for the cost associated with terminating its existing interest rate schwab related to the 2007 bonds.
>> okay. there's no analyst report with this item so why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 5? come on up. thank you. of course, i hate to be against the friends, but legally i'm studying law, the first year of law. isn't there separation of church and state? shouldn't the city not -- i think this is san francisco friends from the quakers. i have to say, generally i'm against nonprofits because even though you're a nonprofit, you still compete for buildings and then you throw out tenants. so, i would ask, has san francisco city attorney looked into this, the city's aligning with a religion, should they distance themselves on that grounds? >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this item, item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed.